-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Occasional NotFoundError failures #524
Comments
Yes, this is most likely the case. If the build is not present it will fail. But that is not a problem with mozdownload. |
It seems like a problem with mozdownload if we are asking "give me the latest linux nightly", it's finding a directory where a linux nightly could be, and because it hasn't been uploaded yet, failing rather than going back to the previous nightly. If we are just using the API wrong that's fine (and suggestions/patches welcome), but otherwise this seems like a real issue. |
Specifically, we're doing:
At least to me, that looks like it shouldn't ever fail because the build isn't present: either there's some bug on the server side which causes |
Oh, I see. You don't use the buildid to specify a particular fixed version. In that case this would need some further investigation. I assume you don't have way to run mozdownload with So @jgraham's reply would make sense. Looks like we don't traverse back into older folders until a version has been found. I wished that we would already have Taskcluster support. Maybe we should raise its severity to make things like that easier. |
How often do you hit that? |
On a timescale of days i.e. a few times a week. It's often enough that the behaviour is problematic. |
So the code clearly finds the build status file of the latest build. But I wonder if new files first get populated in Does it help if you add the I'm not sure if this is something we can fix by using |
I assumed that the problem is the Looking at http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/ I see a time gap of at least an hour between the first artifact and the last one (ignoring the non-67 builds), so this at least seems plausible. Given that, retries would help but the total timeout would have to be prohibitively long to avoid hitting this problem. |
I don't think that we completely replace this folder. In such a case there wouldn't be such old Firefox 66 nightly builds present, as what we currently have. What mozdownload actually does is to check for the status file like: Currently it lists So I really wonder if we maybe first update the links in the @nthomas-mozilla who from RelEng could explain us how the |
You're right that the The artifacts are handled asynchronously, copying them first into the dated directory then to In terms of alternatives
|
Would it be possible for this issue to be assigned to someone? It's coming up in web-platform-tests/wpt#13274 with some regularity, requiring manual intervention each time as we can't tell the difference between mozdownload failures and other types of failures. |
@foolip I replied on the wpt issue with the 2nd part from @nthomas-mozilla reply. If that doesn't work, maybe increase the retry attempts and delays for mozdownload for now. @nthomas-mozilla is there a way to prevent using the cache and always get a fresh copy? We currently try to do it via https://github.com/mozilla/mozdownload/blob/master/mozdownload/scraper.py#L425, but that might be wrong? |
I don't think the caching should be a problem because as noted there's no suggested mechanism for the cached file to not exist, whereas it looks like we are getting a pointer to a file that doesn't yet exist. |
@whimboo AFAIK there's no cache busting that can be done. I had a look through the mozdownload source, and after retrieving the build date it seems |
From web-platform-tests/wpt#13274:
These are stacks like:
From @jgraham in web-platform-tests/wpt#13274 (comment):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: